Thanks for answer.Saw in rules that only dodge bonuses stack for AC so wasnt sure.So you are 100% sure of that?We got stubborn GM so:)))
Stacking isn't a consideration in this case as the two bonuses are of different types. Still, if your GM is, as you put it, stubborn, then check with your GM first.
What Heaven's Agent said.
Also in order to give you some arguements:
The feat says that you gain +1 natural armor bonus.
The amulet of natural armor says that you gain +1 enchancement bonus to natural armor.
So does the Amulet only apply to people that have natural armor? Or is everyone considered having natural armor, even if it is a +0 bonus?
Technically everyone has a +0 natural armor.
So does the Amulet only apply to people that have natural armor? Or is everyone considered having natural armor, even if it is a +0 bonus?Technically everyone has a +0 natural armor.
I don't believe this is the case. Specifically, from the Bestiary...
This creature’s hide is tougher than most.
Prerequisites: Natural armor, Con 13.
Benefit: The creature’s natural armor bonus increases
by +1.
Special: A creature can gain this feat multiple times.
Each time the creature takes the feat, its natural armor
bonus increases by another point.
It is my understanding that you do not have Natural Armor until you have a value greater than 0 of Natural Armor.
Ironhide gives you Natural Armor, which would indicate to me that this feat is then available to the Dwarves, Orcs, and Half-Orcs that take Ironhide.
So does the Amulet only apply to people that have natural armor? Or is everyone considered having natural armor, even if it is a +0 bonus?Technically everyone has a +0 natural armor.I don't believe this is the case. Specifically, from the Bestiary...
** spoiler omitted **
It is my understanding that you do not have Natural Armor until you have a value greater than 0 of Natural Armor.
Ironhide gives you Natural Armor, which would indicate to me that this feat is then available to the Dwarves, Orcs, and Half-Orcs that take Ironhide.
I meant for the purposes of the amulet of natural armor.
I meant for the purposes of the amulet of natural armor.
For the purposes of the amulet, you have no Natural Armor, but a +5 enhancement bonus to Natural Armor. In this case, there is a distinction to be drawn between +0 Natural Armor and not having any at all simply because it impacts your ability to take that feat.
I know it sounds stupid, but you have to be precise when looking at these rules.
I meant for the purposes of the amulet of natural armor.For the purposes of the amulet, you have no Natural Armor, but a +5 enhancement bonus to Natural Armor. In this case, there is a distinction to be drawn between +0 Natural Armor and not having any at all simply because it impacts your ability to take that feat.
I know it sounds stupid, but you have to be precise when looking at these rules.
This is a matter of interpretation of the feat requirement, not the natural bonus +0 rule.
Barkskin states: "A creature without natural armor has an effective natural armor bonus of +0."This is as far as I know the most comprehensive rules on natural armor bonus on creatures without natural armor.
But for the feat, having a natural armor bonus is not the same as having natural armor. The aforementioned quote specifically makes a distinction between the two, and doing so, there is no discrepancy.
An enhancement bonus only requires a natural armor bonus, which everybody got at +0 or better.
Improved natural armor requires natural armor, which is only the case if you have a NA bonus of >0.